662
SILVIA PINEDA-MUNOZ ET AL.
approach such as using phylogenetic contrasts, because we have restricted our discussion to describing broad patterns and to offering hypotheses about possible mechanisms as a basis for future research. In other words, we wish to establish the basic patterns before engaging in a detailed analysis of evolutionary processes. Furthermore, we believe that body- mass evolution is so labile and diet exhibits such rampant convergent evolution that con- cerns about phylogenetic autocorrelation are likely to be unfounded.
Results
the species in our data set shows a significant relationship between body mass and dietary specialization in mammals (p < 0.001). Table 1 summarizes the results of the pairwise Wilcoxon tests for the whole data set and demonstrates statistical differences between
The Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for
some dietary specializations. Table 2 sum- marizes the proportion of animals in each dietary category. Frugivory is the most dis- tinctive dietary specialization, with frugivores having significantly different body masses when compared with granivores, insectivores, and generalists in the whole data set. This interpretation is supported visually by the box plot in Figure 1. Small mammals (10–999 g) forage on invertebrates, seeds, or fungi or display opportunistic generalist diets, while medium-sized mammals (1–30 kg) have carni- vorous or frugivorous diets. Gumivores are represented by a single species in our data set, and this category also fits in the medium-size body-mass range. Herbivore diets cover the entire body-size range beyond the size of the smallest mammals (<10 g). The same patterns can be observed in the data from Wilman et al. (2014) (see Supplementary Table 3 and Supplementary Fig. 2).
TABLE 1. p-Values of pairwise comparisons based on the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for body-mass distributions in diet categories as described by Pineda-Munoz and Alroy (2014) for (A) the whole data set and (B) only rodents.
A. Whole data set
Frugivore Fungivore Granivore Gumivore Herbivore Insectivore Generalists
B. Rodents
Fungivore Granivore Herbivore Insectivore Generalists
Frugivore Fungivore Granivore Herbivore Insectivore 0.76364
-
0.01074 0.03231 0.02424 0.00013
0.77941 1
0.76364 0.18195
- -
0.84345 1 1
- - -
0.24684 0.76364
- - - -
0.86508
TABLE 2. Proportion of animals in each dietary category for each body-mass range as discussed in the text. Micromammals (<10 g)
Small mammals (10–999 g)
Carnivore Frugivore Fungivore Granivore Gumivore Herbivore Insectivore Generalists
0 0 0 0 0
1 (25%) 3 (75%) 1 (25%)
0
9 (9.78%) 3 (3.26%)
15 (16.30%) 1 (1.02%)
18 (19.57%) 29 (31.53%) 17 (18.49%)
Medium-sized mammals (1–30 kg)
4 (12.12%) 17 (51.52%) 0
1 (3.03%) 0
5 (15.15%) 4 (12.12%) 2 (6.06%)
Carnivore Frugivore Fungivore Granivore Gumivore Herbivore Insectivore 1
-
0.6071 0.0271 1 1
0.0338 0.0038
0.1946
<0.0001 1
0.251
<0.0001 <0.0001
- ---- - ---- 1 ---- 1 1 1 1
1
0.1946 1 1
-
1 1 1
- -
0.0073 0.1048
- - -
1
Large mammals (>30 kg)
1 (11.11%) 2 (22.22%) 0 0 0
6 (66.67%) 0 0
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192
